click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
-aircraft and anti-armor. >> rose: that's a distinction from the obama administration according to the -- >> right. i think the nuclear weapons capability line with iran. that seems to be different because the president's always talked about we're not going to contain an iran with nuclear weapons. mr. romney seems to be saying we're not even prepared to get that close. obviously the devil's in the details. >> rose: so governor romney's red line may be earlier than president obama's red line. >> exactly right. i actually thought one other thing was interesting which is he talked about our relationship with most of the arab countries. the egypts and others, the libyas. what he essentially laid out was called a conditional foreign policy. essentially saying, look, the era where we gave aid to you all and you act as you see fit is over. we will continue to work with you but only so long as you meet us halfway, whether it's the way you treat women, girls and minorities, your foreign policy more broadly against israel and terrorism. i think that's an important statement and one that people in both parties
states" was a very interesting and important one. i think that the obama administration would say, look, if there was no daylight the israelis might well have taken military action by now and the u.s. would be sucked into it. the u.s. would have to join it. so there has been daylight, but the daylight in the obama administration's view has been intended to say to the israelis, "look, we're not at the point yet where they're about to get a bomb, there are other possibilities, including more sanctions and more sabotage." >> rose: prime minister netanyahu would welcome this speech? >> by and large yes. but there were some interesting statements that i'm not sure if the word would be "welcome." when governor romney talked about a two-state solution in the middle east and talked about a prosperous and secure independent palestinian state, that was interesting to me because given some of his previous comments people may have wondered whether he represented something of a departure and that to me was his way of saying look, i'm in the mainstream on important issues, i'm in the mainstream on th
? >> he was referring to what he called the weak reaction from the obama administration to the uprising, if you will, in iran, a couple of years ago, when there were protests. people were angry and the u.s. was on the sidelines, the president did not directly speak out and the explanation that the administration at the time gave was that the opposition didn't want this to appear to be the opposition to the ayatollahs, standing up in iran, with the backing of united states. that could have been counterproductive. as a result, the obama administration was pretty silent. at the time now where romney is going after him on that, i think there were a few areas where there were some significant differences, but on the whole, after you get through some of the angry rhetoric, there is a lot of agreement between obama and romney, one area of disagreement on arming the syrian rebels. another area of disagreement, how far will iran be able to go in its nuclear weapons capability, the capability of developing a bomb as opposed to actually having a bomb. and the third was on russia. he twice in a spe
's wrong with the entire obama administration, they have a lack of ambition for this country and what it can and should do. but i would also say if he believes that, that tim geithner believes that a public sector job is equivalent to a private sector job. it's not that public sector jobs aren't important. teachers are important, firemen are important, nurses are important. but a public sector job doesn't pay for itself. taxpayers pay for it. a public sector job doesn't create other jobs. a private sector job pays for itself and creates other jobs. i frankly found his statement shocking. both because of its lack of ambition and because of its misunderstanding of what actually drives growth. it's not public sector jobs. >> let me ask you this, under reagan's recovery, were we laying off teachers and firefighters? were state governments laying off teachers and firefighters at this rate? >> no. absolutely not. >> well, that's part of the recovery. our unemployment is where we are right now if republican governors weren't slashing teach eshs and slashing first responders. >> that's a circ
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)